Ralph Wilson Stadium to be Smoke Free

[thebandit27]

It's really not that complicated, and you're pretty obtuse to not get it. People go to work because they have to to earn money. People take a plane because they need to get somewhere. People pay to get into a Bills game to have fun. Because a couple of needlers like you and Todd don't see the big deal tells me nothing about the people who enjoy drinking and smoking at the game. It tells me a great deal about the petty self-righteous types that want "zero-tolerance".

 

First off, I'm unsure as to why you find yourself incapable of discussing this topic without hurling juvenile insults. Be an adult.

 

Secondly, what you are not understanding is this: if smoking is important enough to you, then you can get a job where you're allowed smoke breaks every hour, or drive to your destination instead of flying, or choose not to attend a Bills' game. These are choices. Nobody makes you work at the job you have, take the transportation that you take, or attend the sporting events you attend. Choice. Get it? There's no reason that airlines, offices, or stadiums have a responsibility to accommodate such habits so that you can have the best of both worlds; smoking is not a right, mind you, just a habit.

 

Lastly, you're right, it's not complicated. No smoking allowed. Not a big deal. It's not an issue of being a needler or self-righteous (as I said many times, when I was a smoker, I didn't smoke in the stadium, and I don't consider myself a hero, just a dude that understood that my next smoke was a mere 3 hours away), it's simply the rules. You and others seem to want to group smoking and drinking together so that you have a leg to stand on in this discussion, but they aren't the same. Nobody outlawed drinking in the stadium, however there are tons of warnings before, during, and after games that "abnoxious, combative, or intoxicated fans" will be removed from the stadium. Now, is the team great at enforcing this? No, but it's still a rule.

 

If you ask me, the "petty self-righteousness" lies in a group of people that think that a professional organization should cater to their habit. If you can explain to me why that makes sense, I'm listening.

Edited June 22, 2011 by thebandit27

[thebug]

I don't smoke, but I had no problem with the designated smoking area. I just avoid it and if someone lights up near me in my seats I can call over an usher. That seemed to work.

 

Last weekend while at our camping trailer, my mother in law thought it would be a good idea to spark up a smoke on our deck and under the awning, right next to us and our children. I can't stand second hand smoke and I certainly don't want my young children exposed to it, never mind the three piles of ashes on my brand new $1700.00 deck . I waited for a minute or two, to see if my wife was going to say anything (she didn't). When her smoke was finish she asked where she could put the butt? I thought that would be a good time to say, "actually, we would appreciate it if you didn't smoke on our deck (as it is kinda part of our trailer) or right next to the kids". Well, she was furious. How dare I tell her where to smoke. She stomped off like a 3 year year old child and couldn't understand why she couldn't smoke on our deck, after all, she smokes on her own. No clue.

 

Not sure what my little story has to doing with banning smoking at RWS? I guess I am just venting (still).

[plenzmd1]

I don't smoke, but I had no problem with the designated smoking area. I just avoid it and if someone lights up near me in my seats I can call over an usher. That seemed to work.

 

Last weekend while at our camping trailer, my mother in law thought it would be a good idea to spark up a smoke on our deck and under the awning, right next to us and our children. I can't stand second hand smoke and I certainly don't want my young children exposed to it, never mind the three piles of ashes on my brand new $1700.00 deck . I waited for a minute or two, to see if my wife was going to say anything (she didn't). When her smoke was finish she asked where she could put the butt? I thought that would be a good time to say, "actually, we would appreciate it if you didn't smoke on our deck (as it is kinda part of our trailer) or right next to the kids". Well, she was furious. How dare I tell her where to smoke. She stomped off like a 3 year year old child and couldn't understand why she couldn't smoke on our deck, after all, she smokes on her own. No clue.

 

Not sure what my little story has to doing with banning smoking at RWS? I guess I am just venting (still).

 

Well...at least she didn't put the butt out on your deck

 

Just kidding..I would be pissed as well.I am all for people having the ability to smoke..but not near the kids is all

Edited June 22, 2011 by plenzmd1

[billsfreak]

I don't smoke, but I had no problem with the designated smoking area. I just avoid it and if someone lights up near me in my seats I can call over an usher. That seemed to work.

 

Last weekend while at our camping trailer, my mother in law thought it would be a good idea to spark up a smoke on our deck and under the awning, right next to us and our children. I can't stand second hand smoke and I certainly don't want my young children exposed to it, never mind the three piles of ashes on my brand new $1700.00 deck . I waited for a minute or two, to see if my wife was going to say anything (she didn't). When her smoke was finish she asked where she could put the butt? I thought that would be a good time to say, "actually, we would appreciate it if you didn't smoke on our deck (as it is kinda part of our trailer) or right next to the kids". Well, she was furious. How dare I tell her where to smoke. She stomped off like a 3 year year old child and couldn't understand why she couldn't smoke on our deck, after all, she smokes on her own. No clue.

 

Not sure what my little story has to doing with banning smoking at RWS? I guess I am just venting (still).

Your story is somewhat relevant to smoking at the Ralph. I can totally understand not wanting to breath second hand smoke, I am an ex-smoker. But, your deck is way, way closer to you and your family then the smoking area at the stadium was to the seats of the people who are on here saying it bothered them. Not to mention, that trailer and deck is your property, you can do what you want there.

[Peace]

Believe it or not, I understand this. However, lots of things are considered gross by lots of people. Some view looking at obese people as gross. How gross is it to see people puke from the booze they consumed at games? I see it all the time; I have been to a game every year since 1994. You know what I do when I see drunks puking, fighting, etc.? I avoid them. Non-smokers were free to avoid smoke by not going out on the ramp. It's not really that hard.

In terms of the game day experience, I dare say that me smoking outside, away from seats, concessions, bathrooms, etc. really isn't the problem at a football game. The true problem (assuming there is one) is alcohol in terms of bringing your wife and children to a game.

 

And Bro, do you have any suggestions about bbqs? There are cars around with gasoline tanks, and people throwing footballs, frisbees, etc. They are a serious injury waiting to happen, not to mention the toxic fumes. And, animal flesh is being cooked. Many are offended by this.

 

I am obviously doing a poor job of making my point, which is that human behavior is not perfect. Imo we are far too judgemental as a society, which is driven by the absolute need to be PC. It has driven us to the point where we are intolerant, unless dealing with a "trendy" issue.

 

We keep going around on this. The "But did you see what Johnny did" argument is besides the point. The Bills banned smoking because it's gross, as you've acknowledged is their right.

 

If they want to ban booze, you might be surprised to find I wouldn't care one bit and would applaud it too, even though I like having a few beers in the lot and at the game. Putting 70,000 drunk people together and letting them drive home is a TERRIBLE idea. Epically bad. Much much much much worse than a smoke cloud. But that's another topic.

 

If I ran an open to the public business, I'd ban smoking. And a-holes. And Cowboys fans.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Peace

[Rob's House]

I think they should do a survey and ban everything that anybody is against. I even think they should ban loud cheering because it's often annoying and if I sit near that guy it could damage my hearing. I mean seriously, if you can't applaud at a moderate level For 3 hours without whistling and shouting maybe you should stay home.

[Orton's Arm]

Believe it or not, I understand this. However, lots of things are considered gross by lots of people. Some view looking at obese people as gross. How gross is it to see people puke from the booze they consumed at games? I see it all the time; I have been to a game every year since 1994. You know what I do when I see drunks puking, fighting, etc.? I avoid them. Non-smokers were free to avoid smoke by not going out on the ramp. It's not really that hard.

In terms of the game day experience, I dare say that me smoking outside, away from seats, concessions, bathrooms, etc. really isn't the problem at a football game. The true problem (assuming there is one) is alcohol in terms of bringing your wife and children to a game.

 

And Bro, do you have any suggestions about bbqs? There are cars around with gasoline tanks, and people throwing footballs, frisbees, etc. They are a serious injury waiting to happen, not to mention the toxic fumes. And, animal flesh is being cooked. Many are offended by this.

 

I am obviously doing a poor job of making my point, which is that human behavior is not perfect. Imo we are far too judgemental as a society, which is driven by the absolute need to be PC. It has driven us to the point where we are intolerant, unless dealing with a "trendy" issue.

I'm normally an anti-PC guy myself: I strongly feel NYS is overtaxed and over-regulated. I also have little sympathy for the radical leftist agenda which drives much of PC thought.

 

But it's worth noting here that objections to smoking are not a new thing, or something the PC crowd thought up and invented. As I hinted at in an earlier post, whites and Asians were first introduced to the idea of smoking tobacco in the 1500s. As that habit became more common it produced a backlash. In the mid-1600s, the sultan of the Ottoman Empire proclaimed a ban on smoking. The emperor of China also prohibited smoking. The Japanese shogun took a dim view of tobacco plantations. "In 1634 the Patriarch of Moscow forbade the sale of tobacco and sentenced men and women who flouted the ban to have their nostrils slit and their backs whipped until skin came off their backs." Also, "When James I [king] of England, a staunch anti-smoker and the author of a A Counterblaste to Tobacco, tried to curb the new trend by enforcing a 4000% tax increase on tobacco in 1604, it proved a failure, as London had some 7,000 tobacco sellers by the early 17th century. Later, scrupulous rulers would realise the futility of smoking bans and instead turned tobacco trade and cultivation into lucrative government monopolies.[28][29]."

 

Smoking bans failed in large part because of economic reasons. Initial efforts to find gold in Virginia had failed, so the Virginia settlers began turning toward tobacco production in 1612. (Eight years before the Pilgrims landed near Plymouth Rock.) Tobacco quickly became the cash crop of Virginia, and a lot of rich plantation owners had a strong vested interest in keeping it going. Almost 100% of the actual farming work was done by indentured servants and slaves. These plantations were a big reason why both indentured servitude and slavery were far more common in the South than either the North or in England. At the other end, both tobacco sellers and the government of England had a vested economic interest in high tobacco consumption + government monopoly + tax.

 

"In 1929, Fritz Lickint of Dresden, Germany, published a paper containing formal statistical evidence of a lung cancer–tobacco link." That medical evidence helped move the German anti-tobacco movement forward. Also, "Adolf Hitler was a heavy smoker in his early life—he used to smoke 25 to 40 cigarettes daily—but gave up the habit, concluding that it was a waste of money.[10] In later years, Hitler viewed smoking as 'decadent'[14] and 'the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man, vengeance for having been given hard liquor',[10] lamenting that 'so many excellent men have been lost to tobacco poisoning'.[18] He was unhappy because both Eva Braun and Martin Bormann were smokers."

 

"Research and studies on tobacco's effects on the population's health were more advanced in Germany than in any other nation by the time the Nazis came to power.[6] The link between lung cancer and tobacco was first proven in Nazi Germany . . ." Increased cigarette taxes, restrictions on smoking in public places, and restrictions on cigarette advertising helped curb cigarette smoking in Nazi Germany. But that progress was reversed after WWII. "As part of the Marshall Plan, the United States sent free tobacco to Germany . . . the United States spent $70 million on this scheme, to the delight of cigarette manufacturing companies in the United States, who profited hugely.[50] Per capita yearly cigarette consumption in post-war Germany steadily rose from 460 in 1950 to 1,523 in 1963. At the end of the 20th century, the anti-tobacco campaign in Germany was unable to exceed the seriousness of the Nazi-era climax in the years 1939–41 and German tobacco health research was described by Robert N. Proctor as 'muted'.[13]"

 

Even though the link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer had first been shown in the late '20s, many Americans saw cigarettes as beneficial to their health many decades later! In one of the classes I took, we were shown television ads made by cigarette companies. One of those ads--from the late '60s or early '70s--provided a graphic depiction of the health benefits cigarette smoking supposedly created! Even as recently as the '80s, cigarette manufacturers claimed that their own medical research found no deleterious medical effects from cigarette smoking. They were successful in confusing this issue, at least for many people. Back in the '80s people said to me, "Some studies say there are bad health effects from smoking, and some studies say otherwise. Who really knows whether they're bad for you or not?" The medical research necessary to show the bad effects of smoking was started in the '20s, and cemented in the '30s and '40s. But cigarette manufacturers achieved a subsequent, large-scale increase in smoking rates by lying about the long-term effects of the addictive, lethal product they had to sell. It was precisely because of that lying that the lawsuit was brought against them; and that lying is also why they lost that lawsuit.

 

A former U.S. soldier told me that even today, the U.S. military strongly encourages cigarette smoking, on the theory that smoking helps keep you alert. If that's true, then that demonstrates everything that's wrong with the U.S.'s approach to cigarettes throughout most of the 20th century. The fact that cigarette smoking kills smokers, significantly harms the fetuses of pregnant female smokers, and impacts the health of secondhand smokers, is seen as secondary to someone's convenience. It was more convenient for cigarette manufacturers to make lots of money selling their existing product than to switch to some other, less harmful product. It was more convenient for the U.S. military to have slightly more alert sentries and so forth, and never mind the long-term death toll that decision might create! At some point, the convenience of plantation owners, cigarette manufacturers, U.S. military officers, and others who benefit from cigarette consumption needs to be balanced by the realization that smokers' lives matter. Neither the lives of U.S. soldiers nor other potential smokers should be casually shortened to make someone else's life a little more convenient! If the Nazi government cared enough about its soldiers to discourage them from smoking, it is unforgivable for the U.S. government to fail to do the same!

[TheMadCap]

I'm normally an anti-PC guy myself: I strongly feel NYS is overtaxed and over-regulated. I also have little sympathy for the radical leftist agenda which drives much of PC thought.

 

But it's worth noting here that objections to smoking are not a new thing, or something the PC crowd thought up and invented. As I hinted at in an earlier post, whites and Asians were first introduced to the idea of smoking tobacco in the 1500s. As that habit became more common it produced a backlash. In the mid-1600s, the sultan of the Ottoman Empire proclaimed a ban on smoking. The emperor of China also prohibited smoking. The Japanese shogun took a dim view of tobacco plantations. "In 1634 the Patriarch of Moscow forbade the sale of tobacco and sentenced men and women who flouted the ban to have their nostrils slit and their backs whipped until skin came off their backs." Also, "When James I [king] of England, a staunch anti-smoker and the author of a A Counterblaste to Tobacco, tried to curb the new trend by enforcing a 4000% tax increase on tobacco in 1604, it proved a failure, as London had some 7,000 tobacco sellers by the early 17th century. Later, scrupulous rulers would realise the futility of smoking bans and instead turned tobacco trade and cultivation into lucrative government monopolies.[28][29]."

 

Smoking bans failed in large part because of economic reasons. Initial efforts to find gold in Virginia had failed, so the Virginia settlers began turning toward tobacco production in 1612. (Eight years before the Pilgrims landed near Plymouth Rock.) Tobacco quickly became the cash crop of Virginia, and a lot of rich plantation owners had a strong vested interest in keeping it going. Almost 100% of the actual farming work was done by indentured servants and slaves. These plantations were a big reason why both indentured servitude and slavery were far more common in the South than either the North or in England. At the other end, both tobacco sellers and the government of England had a vested economic interest in high tobacco consumption + government monopoly + tax.

 

"In 1929, Fritz Lickint of Dresden, Germany, published a paper containing formal statistical evidence of a lung cancer–tobacco link." That medical evidence helped move the German anti-tobacco movement forward. Also, "Adolf Hitler was a heavy smoker in his early life—he used to smoke 25 to 40 cigarettes daily—but gave up the habit, concluding that it was a waste of money.[10] In later years, Hitler viewed smoking as 'decadent'[14] and 'the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man, vengeance for having been given hard liquor',[10] lamenting that 'so many excellent men have been lost to tobacco poisoning'.[18] He was unhappy because both Eva Braun and Martin Bormann were smokers."

 

"Research and studies on tobacco's effects on the population's health were more advanced in Germany than in any other nation by the time the Nazis came to power.[6] The link between lung cancer and tobacco was first proven in Nazi Germany . . ." Increased cigarette taxes, restrictions on smoking in public places, and restrictions on cigarette advertising helped curb cigarette smoking in Nazi Germany. But that progress was reversed after WWII. "As part of the Marshall Plan, the United States sent free tobacco to Germany . . . the United States spent $70 million on this scheme, to the delight of cigarette manufacturing companies in the United States, who profited hugely.[50] Per capita yearly cigarette consumption in post-war Germany steadily rose from 460 in 1950 to 1,523 in 1963. At the end of the 20th century, the anti-tobacco campaign in Germany was unable to exceed the seriousness of the Nazi-era climax in the years 1939–41 and German tobacco health research was described by Robert N. Proctor as 'muted'.[13]"

 

Even though the link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer had first been shown in the late '20s, many Americans saw cigarettes as beneficial to their health many decades later! In one of the classes I took, we were shown television ads made by cigarette companies. One of those ads--from the late '60s or early '70s--provided a graphic depiction of the health benefits cigarette smoking supposedly created! Even as recently as the '80s, cigarette manufacturers claimed that their own medical research found no deleterious medical effects from cigarette smoking. They were successful in confusing this issue, at least for many people. Back in the '80s people said to me, "Some studies say there are bad health effects from smoking, and some studies say otherwise. Who really knows whether they're bad for you or not?" The medical research necessary to show the bad effects of smoking was started in the '20s, and cemented in the '30s and '40s. But cigarette manufacturers achieved a subsequent, large-scale increase in smoking rates by lying about the long-term effects of the addictive, lethal product they had to sell. It was precisely because of that lying that the lawsuit was brought against them; and that lying is also why they lost that lawsuit.

 

A former U.S. soldier told me that even today, the U.S. military strongly encourages cigarette smoking, on the theory that smoking helps keep you alert. If that's true, then that demonstrates everything that's wrong with the U.S.'s approach to cigarettes throughout most of the 20th century. The fact that cigarette smoking kills smokers, significantly harms the fetuses of pregnant female smokers, and impacts the health of secondhand smokers, is seen as secondary to someone's convenience. It was more convenient for cigarette manufacturers to make lots of money selling their existing product than to switch to some other, less harmful product. It was more convenient for the U.S. military to have slightly more alert sentries and so forth, and never mind the long-term death toll that decision might create! At some point, the convenience of plantation owners, cigarette manufacturers, U.S. military officers, and others who benefit from cigarette consumption needs to be balanced by the realization that smokers' lives matter. Neither the lives of U.S. soldiers nor other potential smokers should be casually shortened to make someone else's life a little more convenient! If the Nazi government cared enough about its soldiers to discourage them from smoking, it is unforgivable for the U.S. government to fail to do the same!

 

 

Well, there goes the ballgame! We have a Nazi reference. Mods?

[thebandit27]

I think they should do a survey and ban everything that anybody is against. I even think they should ban loud cheering because it's often annoying and if I sit near that guy it could damage my hearing. I mean seriously, if you can't applaud at a moderate level For 3 hours without whistling and shouting maybe you should stay home.

 

Yes, because that's the EXACT same issue...

 

Wow.

 

Well, there goes the ballgame! We have a Nazi reference. Mods?

 

Yep, Nazi references and cheering = smoking posts...it's time to close this one down.

Edited June 22, 2011 by thebandit27

[Orton's Arm]

Well, there goes the ballgame! We have a Nazi reference. Mods?

I'm sorry, but I really don't see where you're coming from here. I didn't call anyone a Nazi, or liken any specific position to Nazism. I mentioned that the Nazis disliked smoking, which should be as emotion-free a statement as pointing out that the Nazis promoted physical exercise.

 

Thus far, I think that most participants in this thread have done a good job of having an intelligent discussion about a very sensitive issue. Many have expressed passionate opinions, and those opinions seem (for the most part) to be the result of deep reflection, not knee-jerk reactions. People on both sides of this issue seem able to communicate their strong feelings without (usually) resorting to name-calling or personal attacks. So I'm not prepared to simply assume that the people who have had as good a discussion as this will automatically go into emotional hysteria mode simply because the word "Nazi" has been mentioned. Until and unless people acting like hysterical idiots succeed in derailing this conversation, requests for action from the mods are premature at best.

[thebandit27]

I'm sorry, but I really don't see where you're coming from here. I didn't call anyone a Nazi, or liken any specific position to Nazism. I mentioned that the Nazis disliked smoking, which should be as emotion-free a statement as pointing out that the Nazis promoted physical exercise.

 

Thus far, I think that most participants in this thread have done a good job of having an intelligent discussion about a very sensitive issue. Many have expressed passionate opinions, and those opinions seem (for the most part) to be the result of deep reflection, not knee-jerk reactions. People on both sides of this issue seem able to communicate their strong feelings without (usually) resorting to name-calling or personal attacks. So I'm not prepared to simply assume that the people who have had as good a discussion as this will automatically go into emotional hysteria mode simply because the word "Nazi" has been mentioned. Until and unless people acting like hysterical idiots succeed in derailing this conversation, requests for action from the mods are premature at best.

 

I believe it was sarcasm, as was my responding post.

 

For the record, I agree that I don't see any need to close the thread on account of the few that can't articulate their opinioo without going ape.

[Orton's Arm]

I believe it was sarcasm, as was my responding post.

 

For the record, I agree that I don't see any need to close the thread on account of the few that can't articulate their opinioo without going ape.

I'm relieved to hear that!

[K Gun Special]

You don't want to use the booze analogy, but your only retort is that smoking is stupid and it kills you. Alcohol alcohol is responsible for as many deaths per year as tobacco (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146346,00.html) , so I will say then that drinking is stupid and kills you..your an idiot if you ever have more than two beers. Talk about a disgusting habit???

 

Good god that could not be more incorrect from Foxnews.

 

" More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combine""" http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm

[plenzmd1]

Good god that could not be more incorrect from Foxnews.

 

" More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combine""" http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm

 

Hah..was wondering when someone was going to catch that To be fair, Fox did not conduct the study..just reported on it!

 

Now, lot's of folks would say the same about he CDC no?

[Just Jack]

Well, there goes the ballgame! We have a Nazi reference. Mods?

Yep, Nazi references and cheering = smoking posts...it's time to close this one down.

No one has used the report function so it stays open.

[TheMadCap]

No one has used the report function so it stays open.

 

It was more of a joke than anything Jack. No worries...

[Bill from NYC]

I think they should do a survey and ban everything that anybody is against.

 

This is the part that although spelled out to them, many seem to miss. I am 100% sure that some (not all) of the posters applauding this particular ban will be screaming like mad when the next ban comes along. My guess is that it will be barbecues.

Barbecues at stadiums can be extremely dangerouus for a slew of obvious reasons. Not only that, without them there might be a hungrier crowd for the 6 dollar hot dogs in the stadium.

On a personal level, I have 3 daughters who are non smokers. I accused the oldest one of being in the "regulated generation." Her retort was compelling imo. She accused the ex-hippies of my generation (who protested away) of being the most involved in our passing of these new rules. I had to agree.

 

In "tough" Boston, they are really "cracking down." Yes, Boston, the home of various ethnic gangs, "Southie," etc. has really decided to take a stand. Check this out:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/10/boston-mayor-thomas-menino-kos-soda-oks-alcohol/

[thebandit27]

This is the part that although spelled out to them, many seem to miss. I am 100% sure that some (not all) of the posters applauding this particular ban will be screaming like mad when the next ban comes along. My guess is that it will be barbecues.

Barbecues at stadiums can be extremely dangerouus for a slew of obvious reasons. Not only that, without them there might be a hungrier crowd for the 6 dollar hot dogs in the stadium.

On a personal level, I have 3 daughters who are non smokers. I accused the oldest one of being in the "regulated generation." Her retort was compelling imo. She accused the ex-hippies of my generation (who protested away) of being the most involved in our passing of these new rules. I had to agree.

 

In "tough" Boston, they are really "cracking down." Yes, Boston, the home of various ethnic gangs, "Southie," etc. has really decided to take a stand. Check this out:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/10/boston-mayor-thomas-menino-kos-soda-oks-alcohol/

 

And here is the part that many other folks still seem to miss: if/when another ban comes along on, say, barbecue grills or alcohol, it will not affect your ability to attend a game in the slightest. If they ban bbq grills, bring electric cooking equipment. If they ban alcohol, figure out a way to have a good time without it, or pick a DD, get up early, and get bombed before you leave for the stadium.

 

It's my opinion that the people that are up in arms over the smoking ban are taking things too personally. Smoking is banned at bars, movie theatres, restaurants, public transportation units, public parks, bowling alleys, within 50 feet of any public building entrance, and many, many other places. Why? Many reasons: it protects the rights of everyone wanting to breath clean air, it discourages the practice of a known-to-be-self-destructive behavior, it reduces littering, it reduces fire hazards, etc.

 

We're not talking about the beginning of the end of civil rights here; just a smoking ban. You haven't seen dancing banned in bars, laughing banned in movie theatres, talking banned in restaurants, frisbee tossing banned in public parks, etc. And you won't. It's not the same thing, and I think those insinuating that it is are being disingenuous.

Edited June 23, 2011 by thebandit27

[eball]

Good god that could not be more incorrect from Foxnews.

 

" More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combine""" http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm

Well, to be fair, when you use "fox" and "news" in the same sentence, you kind of already know what you're getting.

[Bill from NYC]

And here is the part that many other folks still seem to miss: if/when another ban comes along on, say, barbecue grills or alcohol, it will not affect your ability to attend a game in the slightest. If they ban bbq grills, bring electric cooking equipment. If they ban alcohol, figure out a way to have a good time without it, or pick a DD, get up early, and get bombed before you leave for the stadium.

 

It's my opinion that the people that are up in arms over the smoking ban are taking things too personally. Smoking is banned at bars, movie theatres, restaurants, public transportation units, public parks, bowling alleys, within 50 feet of any public building entrance, and many, many other places. Why? Many reasons: it protects the rights of everyone wanting to breath clean air, it discourages the practice of a known-to-be-self-destructive behavior, it reduces littering, it reduces fire hazards, etc.

 

We're not talking about the beginning of the end of civil rights here; just a smoking ban. You haven't seen dancing banned in bars, laughing banned in movie theatres, talking banned in restaurants, frisbee tossing banned in public parks, etc. And you won't. It's not the same thing, and I think those insinuating that it is are being disingenuous.

 

The following is NOT to insult you, so PLEASE do not take offense.

 

I could be way off base, but my guess is that you are FOR the trendy issues of today. I would like to know your stance on marijuana and gay marriages. Btw, these issues do not terribly concern me one way or the other.

It seems like you, and so many others have been indoctrinated. And, your post above paints you as quite submissive. That said, I enjoy the interaction. It is a good thing to consider the views of others.

 

Be well, and GO BILLS!!!!!